Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seems the only options these days are hurting homeowners, weighing the legal and
financial repercussions after a short sale, foreclosure or bankruptcy filing.
Short Sale:
Pro: Allows the alleged lender to recover at least some of the debt.
Pro: Give the borrowers personal and moral satisfaction feeling he has done the best he
can.
Con: If it is not a personal residence, the borrower could be subject to taxation on the
amount forgiven.
Con: Typically is not enough to pay the first mortgage in full. Seconds still out could
have judicial recourse.
Con: Takes a lot of work and agreement by the lender.
Con: The borrower cannot buy another house for two years.
Foreclosure:
Pro: Don’t have to do anything, just walk away.
Con: Will prevent the borrower from getting a real estate mortgage for seven years.
Con: An unsecured second lender could sue for judgment.
Bankruptcy:
Pro: Chapter 7 is a way to cancel credit card and all other debt and avoid foreclosure.
Con: May lose certain personal assets such as expensive cars and jewelry.
Con: Name is published in the newspaper; send of shame
Con: The cost (attorney costs, $1,000 and up, filing costs, about $300)
Con: Can only be declared once every eight years.
Con: May still use credit cards, but have to pay in full every month.
A short sale is when a home is sold for less than the amount the homeowner allegedly
owes the bank. The transaction requires the bank’s approval and a buyer but is one way
to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy.
Bankruptcies and pre-foreclosure notices have more than doubled and more then
tripled in many areas. Seems it’s a losing situation all around.
Before going down the road toward short sale, foreclosure, or even bankruptcy
consider this report and do the research for yourself, and see if there is better solution to
rectify this situation.
************************
Nevada, California and Florida had the highest foreclosure rates in the nation in 2008. During the
housing boom, all three states recorded big price run-ups, and saw a large proportion of homes
sold to investors. In Nevada, one of every 167 homes was in some foreclosure stage during a
certain month. California had the largest total number of foreclosures among the states. There
were more than 57,000 foreclosure filings there in January of 2008 and higher this year, one for
every 227 homes. Florida trailed well back in total foreclosures with 30,000, but its rate of one
for every 273 households was only slightly behind its West Coast rival. Several states recorded
massive jumps in foreclosure activity in the last twelve months. In Rhode Island filings rose
279%; in Maryland they spiked 430%; and in Virginia they leapt 634%. Las Vegas tops
foreclosure list.
Many borrowers seem to come to us with a range of reasons and mentalities. Some have a gut
feeling that something is wrong with their mortgage. We have seen Clients who have personal
relationships with their broker or lender and can’t believe that they’ve been put into a bad loan.
Mortgage documents are difficult to understand. It takes auditors a long time to become
proficient at what they do. Regardless of your situation, every mortgage borrower should get a
Mortgage Audit, especially if your mortgage is less than 3 years old or threatened with
Foreclosure.
We pay close attention to all types of mainstream media news clips regarding predatory lending
and foreclosures. When foreclosures are mentioned, all that we seem to hear about is the inability
of borrowers to pay their adjustable rate mortgages. Do we ever hear about the fault being with
the Lenders? Is it possible that we are seeing so many foreclosures because borrowers are being
set-up to fail?
When Predatory Lending is mentioned, there usually seems to be an agenda. That agenda more
than likely is to get you into another loan. We don’t agree with that as an initial solution.
How would you feel if you were a victim of Predatory Lending? For many, just the thought of
being deceived or victimized can cause stress and anxiety.
We like clients to be open-minded and take a look at the Predatory Lending from another
perspective. If you are in a good loan, that’s great. If you do happen to be a victim of predatory
lending, why spend your time worrying when there could be a bright side to your situation?
We make it as simple as possible for you to turn the tables on your Lender. Predatory Lenders
get away with their practices because borrowers are unsuspecting, or don’t know what to do.
Since you’re reading this, you are fortunate to be aware of what to do and path to follow!
Our ultimate goal is to have borrowers treated fairly.
State and Federal Consumer Protection Laws allow damages to accumulate fast for
victims of predatory lending. Lenders may correct their errors and omissions at anytime
during the life of a loan unless the borrower discovers discrepancies first.
We will be the first to say that it's unfortunate that the services we provide to protect
borrowers is even needed. It's a shame that discrepancies are found in nearly 70% of
mortgages audited. Only around 20% of the Preliminary Audits completed for our
prospective clients prove to be good (non-predatory) loans.
Let's face reality. If predatory lenders can get away with taking advantage of
borrowers 99% of the time...it's going to be profitable!
******There’s More******
REAL ESTATE
LOAN TRANSACTIONS
The five basic perquisites of a contract are:
Before a real estate loan transaction takes place, the lender has made it publicly known
that they have a product or service to offer. They may advertise that they have the
cheapest “mortgage” in town. Or, they may advertise that they have the lowest interest
rates on “home loans,” or “home equity loans.” So, whether you are looking to buy a
home, or refinance your existing loan, you fill out an “application” and a “credit
report” is ordered. Then the paper work begins, with the drafting and signing of the
“promissory note” and the “mortgage” documents and all the federally required
disclosure forms, and all the forms requiring various fees for specified services relative to
such a transaction. This all takes place, before your final appearance at what is called a
“closing.” Sometime after all this is done, which may require anywhere from one to
three meetings and signings, over a period of weeks and sometimes months, you receive
the “loan check” drawn on an “account” housed with the lender, which you may have
never seen, if you are using a “loan broker”. Use of the internet and wire transfers have
recently sped up this process, somewhat.
But, who made the “offer” in this transaction? Did the lender ever make an offer to
“loan money” to you? Or, did they offer to “make” you a loan? Did you make the offer
when you filled out and signed the application for the loan? Or, was that an application
for the service or product the lender was advertising? And, just what is a loan? If you
need $20 and ask if I will loan you the twenty, which you promise to pay back the day
after you receive your next paycheck, and I agree to loan you the twenty, where do I get
the $20.00? From my own pocket of course. Is this what the lender in a real estate loan
transaction does? Do they loan you their own money? In a “money-less” economy
where all commerce operates on “credit” from where do the lenders get the money?
What about that promissory note? Could that be the offer that is being made? Are you
offering to pay $ (your promissory note) to the lender, to get a loan, to purchase a
property? Is a “loan” money and if it is, whose money is being loaned? Can you get a
real estate loan, without signing a “promissory note” (your promise to pay) and
assigning a “security interest” (mortgage) in the property, to the lender? Could that be
why the lender has you sign the promissory note first, before you sign the “mortgage”
Does your promissory note begin with the words: “For a loan I have received,
Borrower promises to pay $ ………”? If so, what was the loan you received?
Before the lender met you, did the lender have your promissory note? Did the lender
have your promise to pay? Did the lender have a mortgage on the property? Did the
lender sign any of the documents that represent your loan transaction? Does the
documents (promissory note and mortgage), provide for the sale or assignment of the
note and mortgage to any third parties? Was this disclosed and explained to you? Does
anyone’s signature, other than yours, appear anywhere on the note or mortgage? What
was the “consideration” offered by the lender? Is this a valid contract?
On what account was the loan check drawn? What funded that account? Was it the
lenders funds? Was it the funds of the other depositors? Prior to the “loan” did you have
a “loan account” with the lender? Was this the account from which the “loan check”
was drawn?
How long did you have to wait, after the promissory note and the mortgage were signed
by you (and only you), before, you were notified by the lender that your loan had been
“approved”?
During this time (while you were waiting for approval of your loan), did the lender take
your promissory note (with all the interest extrapolated out over the life of the note), and
“discount” the note and sell it on the “secondary market” to a “buyer of notes” to
raise the funds to complete the “loan transaction” with you? Did the lender also assign
to the buyer of the note an interest in the mortgage, as security for payment of the note?
Was the lender an “institutionalized” lender or a “mortgage lender”? If the lender was
other than an institutionalized lender, then did your lender have to go to an
institutionalized lender, and borrow the funds to conduct his business with you, and
assign an equity interest in the mortgage, to the institutionalized lender to secure the
payment of the note, by you? Could your lender borrow “more” than the face amount of
your note?
If the lender used your promissory note, to raise an asset to the lender, in an amount equal
to or, more than, the necessary funds to fund the “loan account” in order to conduct the
lender’s advertised business, were you aware of that? Was that disclosed to you? Was
that disclosed in the “loan agreement”?
If the consideration for this real estate loan transaction is being raised by hypothecation
or the sale of your promissory note, and secured by an assignment, of your assignment of
an equity interest in the property, which you do not yet own, and all this takes place
before you are approved for the loan, or receive your loan check, then who do you think
provided the funds for the “loan you have received”?
If your note was hypothecated or discounted and sold to raise the funds for your loan,
(before you receive your loan), and you make every payment on the note and pay it off,
then does not your contribution to this transaction have at least “twice” the “face value”
of the original note, not counting the interest you have paid? (ie. a 15 year note for
$100,000 @ 8%, discounted 1 to 1.5 basis points, still raises over $100,000). If only
$100,000 was needed to fund the loan (and the sale of your note by the lender raised that
amount), who got the amount over $100,000? Did you?
Who is the actual “offeror” in a real estate loan transaction”? If the lender offered to
“make you a loan” and you offered your “promissory note” as payment of that loan,
and the lender hypothecated or “sold” your promissory note to raise the funds to do the
“lender’s business” with you, and did not disclose to you that was the lender’s intention
and past practice, who do you think was the offeror? Do you think you have been
defrauded?
But, did the lender offer to loan you “money” in the amount of $ _______? (Amount
that you promised to pay in return for the loan you have received). Did you believe that
was the lender’s stated intent? Why? Does it actually state that in the promissory note,
loan agreement, or mortgage? Are you sure? How can you be so sure? Where does it so
state?
If you pay the amount you promised to pay in your promissory note, with all the stated
interest, then add the amount received by the lender when your note was sold, do you
think your contribution to this real estate loan transaction would equal at least “three
times” the “face value” of your original note?
What do you think was the lenders “total contribution” to this real estate loan
transaction? What do you think was the lenders total “risks” in this real estate loan
transaction? If you used a “mortgage broker” to find you a lender, do you think you
might have paid an interest rate that was higher than what was being advertised, and
higher than if you had gone directly to the lender? Who do you think might have
received the extra percentage points? Could the mortgage broker have received them?
How many thousands of dollars do you think that was? How was that disclosed on the
“closing” documents? Did you pay the mortgage broker their fees, or did the lender?
What if your promissory note, which was hypothecated or sold by the lender to raise the
funds to conduct his business with you, subsequently sells to other buyers of notes 6, 7,
or 8 more times, at a discount? Now how much do you think your signature on the note,
has generated? Five, six, seven times, the original face amount of your note? How much
of that have you received? Was this disclosed to you? Did you sign a contract with the
alleged lender to back the alleged loan? Where is that document? A Promissory Note is
not a contract, a Mortgage Note is not a contract, and a Deed of Trust is not a contract.
Where is the contract that backs the alleged loan?
Why did Congress pass TILA, the Truth in Lending Act? Was it to protect consumers
from unscrupulous lenders? What disclosures does Regulation Z, require of lenders?
Who enforces Regulation Z?
PART III
FORECLOSURE
What if you fall on hard times and can no longer make the payment? Do you refinance?
If you refinance, do you get back your original promissory note, with only your signature
showing? Or, has it been, endorsed by the original lender, “Without Recourse” to a
third party? Has it been sold, or assigned?
What if you can’t refinance or make the payments on the refinance, and go into default?
Will a lawyer file a foreclosure action, in the name of the original lender, who has
hypothecated, sold or assigned the note and mortgage, “Without Recourse” to a third
party? What if the original lender no longer is in possession of the note? What if the
original lender, or the buyer or assignee, did not file a “UCC-1 Financing Statement”
with the Secretary of State’s Office? Do they have standing to enforce the “security
instrument”? Does a lender have standing to file a UCC-1 Financing Statement with the
Secretary of State’s Office without a contract with you?
What if the original lender is serving as the “servicer” of the note, for the “buyer” of the
note, can the foreclosure action then be brought in the name of the original lender, or
would the original lender, or a sister company established to “service” the notes they
sale, have to bring the action on behalf of the buyer? But, what if the buyer is not in
physical possession of the note, and neither the servicer, nor the buyer have filed a UCC-
1 Financing statement, does either have standing to enforce the security instrument?
What if the UCC-1 Financing Statement has been filed, and the mortgage foreclosure is judicially
processed and the sale of the property is judicially ordered and the property is sold. And, what if
the amount of the loan outstanding is less than the equity in the property, but the sale is for the
Would you file your answer and counterclaim in state court, or federal court? Would you
file in state court and then remove to federal court, if your affirmative defenses and
allegations in your counterclaim arise under federal law? How would you handle the
diversity issue?
PART IV
FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
(FDCPA)
What if the lawyer who filed the Foreclosure Complaint, “Verified” (attested to the truth
and correctness) of the complaint, and signed both the verification and the complaint, but
there is no declaration or affidavit filed with the complaint, by his alleged client, the
original lender, the servicer, or the buyer (note holder)? Can a lawyer give testimony in a
case for which he is the legal representative? (No) Does the lawyer have personal
knowledge that the facts contained in the complaint are true and correct? (No) Would that
be the same as filing a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding? (Yes) Is that an unethical
practice? (Yes) Is that legal? (No) Is that a felony, or a misdemeanor? (Yes) Would such
action by a lawyer subject him to sanctions (fine) under the FDCPA? Would that stop the
foreclosure? Would that be just cause for the State disciplinary commission to
investigate and sanction the lawyer, upon complaint being filed?
What if that lawyer (or law firm) had done that several hundred, or even thousands of
times? Would that form the proper foundation for a “class action” lawsuit? Or, would
thousands of individual lawsuits be more appropriate?
*****There’s More*****
Not enough? Let’s explore the possible Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Deceit!
Could our neighborhood banker deceive us? Play us for fools?
.............Let’s See............
Expert sources in the field of predatory mortgage transactions have discovered the
following: (a) 'The holder in due course or subsequent holder cannot hold a claim
superior to the prior holder'; (b) 'An ultra vires act causes the piercing of the corporate
veil or of any similar limited liability or partnership structure, so that the entire liability
flows directly to the holder. Furthermore, publicly-owned corporations must publicly
disclose a contingent liability reserve in their Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filings'; (c) 'A bank may remain a de facto corporation inter se among its
shareholders, but if the 'corporation in good standing status' is suspended or otherwise
terminated, it is no longer a corporation to the world at large, and it becomes a fraud to
represent publicly that this entity is a corporation. Moreover a publicly owned and traded
corporation that loses its 'in good standing' status has an affirmative, positive duty to
publish a public notice to that effect and to so inform all stockholders immediately.
Furthermore, loss of 'in good standing' status by the corporation due to ultra vires acts,
may toll the running of any applicable Statute of Limitations in respect of claims against
the corporation and its shareholders'. This Editor's Note: The 'mainstream' media,
compromised because of the Operation Mockingbird CIA penetration and control
programmed referenced in this analysis, fails to report and investigate such breaches, in
disgraceful continuing dereliction of its Fourth Estate duty.
It is likely (and should by now be becoming crystal clear) that tens of thousands of
FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT complaints will be filed by US borrowers against
lenders and mortgage brokers who have energetically sold adjustable mortgage
arrangements without income verification and other checks, because the lenders and
mortgage brokers possessed information on their prospective borrowers that the intended
contracted mortgage loan would be unserviceable by the prospective borrower, on the
basis of the lenders’ and brokers’ own financial due diligence that they did not share with
the borrower. In such instances, if ruled, then a meeting of minds did not take place and
accordingly, no contract ever existed.
This is exactly the line that some Judges must now take heed to what is set before them in
their courtrooms, and must give equal or just opportunity to scammed homeowners.
In some instances, the borrower will have to vacate the premises, which were never theirs
anyway, but will not be responsible for making any payments on the property to anyone.
The borrower should also be awarded repayment of any and all mortgage payments they
The Foreclosure Report
Page 9 of 19
may have made on the property, inclusive of all origination fees, property taxes,
recording fees, mandatory insurance premium, plus multiple damages from both the
lender and the mortgage broker. There would also need to be NO negative impact upon
the borrower’s credit file and rating. What was that mortgage insurance for anyway?
When these transactions are deconstructed, a horrific nexus of fraud becomes apparent.
Once upon a time, the borrower sat down at the closing table at the escrow company. He
did NOT own the property when he sat down at the table.
Yet, all of a sudden, he miraculously owns the property, free and clear of all
encumbrances: otherwise, how could he mortgage it? The borrower has signed an
agreement stating inter alia that ‘for good and valuable consideration, RECEIPT OF
WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED’, and being fully seized in the property
(which means fully owning it without any encumbrance) ‘I, the borrower, do hereby enter
into this agreement to mortgage said property as fully described in this document by
virtue of my appointment as trustor, and do appoint as trustee irrevocably for this
purpose’ (the name of the trustee who works for the title company handling the
transaction).
A document has been written which clearly states that the buyer admits to having
received ‘consideration’ of some type PRIOR to this point in time – in exchange for
WHAT? He admits that he owns the property free of all debt; otherwise he could not
mortgage it. The escrow company agrees with him that the property at this point is free
and clear of debt, or else they could not serve as the intermediary fiduciary party
certifying these assertions as facts.
But this begs the very obvious question: if the borrower already owns the property, why
does he need the mortgage, unless he is borrowing money to be used for some other
private purpose of his? If he uses the property as collateral for the loan, when does he
receive the money? Has the borrower, or has any party involved, EVER received the
money from the mortgagee?
What has actually happened is that the borrower’s promissory note was immediately
monetized by stamping ‘Pay to the order of’ on the reverse of the promissory note, which
was then deposited as cash into a deposit account at a bank. The borrower was never told
that this occurred.
• The numbers are of course all just bookkeeping entries, which simply debit the
depositor’s account by the amount of the bank check.
The seller leaves the escrow office with check in hand, which he then proceeds to deposit
in his checking account, whereupon his bank balance increases via bookkeeping entry,
while the issuing bank’s transaction account is debited via a bookkeeping entry.
The next step in this fraudulent transaction occurs when the bank, now in possession of a
large mortgage obligation, sells this mortgage obligation to a lender of some kind or
other, usually the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae (Federal
National Mortgage Association) or Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation). The bank then receives full cash payment, again via a simple bookkeeping
entry, and is appointed the ‘servicer’ of the loan for its entire period of existence. The
seller is happy, and goes his merry way.
But the buyer possesses no knowledge that he actually funded his own transaction
through his own promissory note, and is never told that this was the basis of the entire
transaction, or that he still has a demand deposit account at the bank from which the
check to the buyer originated via the transaction account.
Another crucial dimension arising from this skewed state of affairs is that, since the entire
note of obligation has now been proven to be null and void ab initio, and the property
‘owner’ is still the trustor, he is entitled at this point to revoke trustee appointment of the
title company’s trust document, since it was obtained through fraudulent
• Fannie Mae is a true holder, since they took it for value as true, and as represented by
the bank.
• The mortgage is now worthless as collateral, and can no longer be used as a component
of the mortgage-backed securities bundle that has already been sold into the marketplace
by Fannie Mae.
• The property owner has no obligation to Fannie Mae, as Fannie Mae was never a party
to the sale. On the contrary, the bank is the party that benefited from the payment of cash
provided by Fannie Mae, and the bank must therefore make Fannie Mae whole by return
of the value by a legitimate means – either by paying cash, or else by the replacement of
another fraudulently obtained mortgage.
• That leaves the property owner in possession of a free and clear property, and the
criminal bank holding the bag as the entity responsible to the actual lender (Fannie Mae,
or whomever), for repayment of the funds advanced.
• The bank cannot lay claim to any property interest, as the bank was engaged in a
fraudulent transaction and had no valid contract with the buyer, and acknowledged that
the property owner had no claim on this property at the time of the transaction.
This reality opens a further can of worms for the banks, in that the law is also governed
by a maxim that ‘any money you make from the illegal use of my money, is my money’.
Of course we are now well and truly through the Looking-Glass, because Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Bank System and other relevant Government-
Sponsored Enterprises (or GSEs) and the banks themselves are all actually ‘government
agencies’ – although the double-minded phrase Government-Sponsored Enterprise itself
gives the lie to such obfuscation and the banks are independent organizations as well as
being supervised ‘government agencies’.
• The GSEs cannot ‘operate in the private sector’ and at the same time refrain from
seeking the remedies due to them when they have been defrauded: and officials in
Government who may seek to restrain them from so doing would be acting illegally. In
any case, the books still need to be balanced, but that’s a problem for Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac; it’s not the buyer’s problem.
The banks appealed against this outcome, and lost. As a consequence, thousands of home
owners had millions in payments and fees returned to them. However the case in question
did NOT bring up any of the issues discussed in our analysis.
When loans are extended, the party extending the loan MUST provide FULL
DISCLOSURE, or the transaction is illegal. Another thorny problem facing banks is that
once a banking corporation has committed an ultra vires action, their charter is required
to be suspended and they are obliged to cease all business transactions immediately until
reinstated by the State banking authority.
While in this condition, banks may not enter into any contracts, nor may they sue in
court. What, then, does this mean for ALL THE BUSINESS that they have conducted
SINCE the first ultra vires action was committed?
The crucial point here is that when the person being foreclosed upon requests the contract
when challenging the foreclosure in court, he or she will be able thereby to demonstrate
to the court that the bank cannot provide any such document.
In the case cited with Deutsche Bank, they could not provide the contract because it did
not possess a contract. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the foreclosure process.
Cases were cited out of Ohio.
So the message to all who are vexed by this fraudulent finance offensive is that no loan
can be foreclosed upon without a contract to back it up: and no contract exists in these
cases. However it is essential for the foreclosure to be challenged at the hearing and that
the contract be requested. This is usually done in America by means of a motion lodged
prior to the date of the hearing.
In the Ohio report cited, the author implies, but does not actually state, that the reason the
bank did not possess the contract was that the contract had been collectivized as the bank
had been a purchaser of some of the packaged sub prime derivatives. It can now be seen
that these so-called mortgage-backed, collectivized, synthetic derivatives that have been
sold around the world which are based on loans, have nothing to back them up and are
therefore worthless.
• “ACTUAL FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scanter]
when it causes injury to another…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s
Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
Theft by Deception and Fraudulent Conveyance:
THEFT BY DECEPTION:
• “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party
is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.
• “The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable,
arising from the relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such
circumstances being equivalent to an actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.
• To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape
investigation and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and acts relied on must be
of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing
Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Concealment’.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE:
• ‘FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE… A conveyance or transfer of property, the object of which is to defraud a creditor,
or hinder or delay him, or to put such property beyond his reach…”.
• “Conveyance made with intent to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent on person (entity) making
transfer…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing
Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Conveyance’.
**********There’s More***********
Do you really know what happened now? Or do you need one more push?
Here it comes.. The process and what you can do
1.24. All the awesome things you agreed to within the Deed of Trust.
15. Notices. All notices given by Borrower or Lender in connection with this
Security Instrument must be in writing. Any notice to Borrower in connection with
this Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when
mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower’s notice address if
sent by other means.
BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accepts and agrees to the terms and covenants
contained in this Security Instrument and in any Rider executed by Borrower and
recorded with it.
EXPLAINATION OF
DEED OF TRUST
Email: StrikebackatPredatoryLenders7@gmail.com
PO Box 9277 Bend, OR 97708
THE END
Karen Tappert
Pacific Federal Title
850 S. Boulder Hwy. Ste 132
Henderson Nevada, 89015-7564